8. Idea of God not innate (aka more confusion)

"...since it is hard to conceive how there should be innate morals principles without an innate idea of a deity." This is a true statement but that doesn't signify that god exists. I don't sell drugs because the law says it's illegal andI'll go to jail. This isn't innate, through my lifelong learning experiences, the law told me it was illegal. But now I'm confused because I thought Locke believed that God is not innate when he just inferred that he is innate.

Confused... How unusual

I was going through book 2 again and I decided that I am officially confused as to what I believe out of Locke's mouth. Now, as we all know, Locke's not a big fan of the concept of innate principles, which by definition are inherent or intrinsic characteristics or properties of some thing, such as a quality or capability which is possessed since birth. But in Book 2, it appears to me that he is contradicting one of his strongest beliefs.

Locke brings up the argument of tabula rasa, where he infers that the mind is a blank sheet which through experience attains simple ideas that stand as a basis for our more complex ideas to grow off of. He explains how the mind does this through complex ideas, subjects, and modes. This makes sense and all, but wouldn't these three things count as innate principles, since they are all basises? The mind naturally functions this way, it is not taught to function this way, hence they would seem to be innate. That's how I feel although I may not be right, comment and let me know what you think because I'm confused.